Debates of Feb. 2nd, 2023

Canada Revenue Agency

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of fiscal mismanagement, the Liberal government is not even hiding it anymore. It has now decided it no longer needs to accept the advice of the Auditor General, who says $27 billion in COVID support payments need to be investigated. Instead, the CRA says it is not worth the effort.

Will the government take the advice of the independent Auditor General, or does it believe it is not worth the effort to recover money for taxpayers?

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, when the pandemic hit, we acted quickly to get recovery benefits into people's bank accounts without delay. To achieve that goal, we planned to verify eligibility on the back end after the fact. This approach kept workers attached to their jobs and positioned our economy to come roaring back.

The report found that our individual support programs achieved their intended goals of getting money to Canadians quickly, allowing Canadians to stay home safely and avoiding severe social and economic consequences. The AG also noted that lower-income workers and groups most impacted by the pandemic were able to benefit from the programs.

We are proud of the measures we took to support Canadians.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the words “costly coalition” have been given new meaning. Last week, we heard that the head of the CRA said it would “not be worth the effort” to fully review $15.5 billion in what might be incorrect pandemic wage benefits.

After eight years of the Prime Minister, Canadians are using food banks more than ever and are finding it impossible to buy a home. Does the Liberal government think it is not worth the effort to fully review payments worth a total of $32 billion in Canadian tax dollars?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate. It turns out the member opposite was not attending last week's meeting of the public accounts committee, because if he was, he would have heard the commissioner of the CRA say that verification work is ongoing with respect to CERB, with respect to CEWS and with respect to all of the emergency programs the government turned out to help Canadians, individuals, families and businesses.

It was a fiscally responsible approach that we promised throughout. In fact, he should go back to the record. In November 2020, it was the Conservatives who voted against carrying out CRA audits on businesses.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Abdullah Hamdard is in Ottawa this week and here today pleading with the Liberal government to get his family out of Afghanistan. Abdullah served alongside our troops in Afghanistan, and his family qualified to come to Canada almost a year ago, but nothing has happened. His brother is now missing, feared dead, and his family is living under daily threats. He personally met the minister on Tuesday.

How many more Afghans who have helped Canada need to die before the minister commits to urgently getting Abdullah's family and other Afghans safely to Canada?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that if it was a matter of will, there would be 40,000 Afghan refugees here already, but there are obstacles that are beyond certain control.

As the member just said, the minister did meet him, but let me remind this House of the last numbers we have. We have so far welcomed 26,700 Afghans who can now call Canada home.

We will continue to work with our Afghan community.

Labour

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like many employers, last year, the federal government experimented with new hybrid approaches to work. Now it has begun phasing in a new common hybrid work model across government.

Can the President of the Treasury Board please explain how this model will help the government serve Canadians?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his hard work for the people of Vaughan—Woodbridge.

Canada's public service is one of the best in the world. Hybrid work lets us harness the best of in-person and remote work, creating shared in-person experiences that foster collaboration and trust, together with the flexibility of up to two to three days of remote work a week. Consistency in how hybrid is applied across government will make employees' experiences consistent no matter where they work, and it will support our core purpose: serving Canadians.

Health

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I presented a petition from over 33,000 Canadians calling on the Prime Minister to defend public health care.

Canadians know that when the Conservatives say “innovation”, they mean “privatization”, which means lining the pockets of corporations and sticking patients with the bill. The Prime Minister knows it too. Last election, he called out the Conservatives' support of health care privatization, promising he would defend our public system, but today he will not keep that promise.

Will the Prime Minister tell us if he meant what he said during the last election or if this is another Liberal flip-flop?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear: Canadians are proud of our system, and this government is too. It is based on need and not the ability to pay, and we believe that all one should need in order to get health care is a health card, not a credit card.

We will make sure that our investments respect the Canada Health Act while always defending our universal public health care system.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Alain Rayes, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are organizations in my riding that host international artists, athletes and students year after year. Naturally, they need visas. The problem is that the processing time is now over a year and a half. That is 14 months longer than in July 2022, despite the fact that the standard is 14 days in these types of cases.

Last August, the minister claimed that demand would peak by the end of September and that delays would return to normal after that. It is now February, and it is getting worse.

Can the minister explain this total failure for people trying to get a visa to come to our country?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, we are taking every step to address the backlog in the short term while making Canada's immigration system more sustainable in the long term.

Allow me to be very candid. We have processed approximately 4.8 million applications in total, nearly double the number of the year before. We tripled the number of work permits issued, and we returned to a 60-day service standard for new study permit applications. We achieved that by digitizing applications and hiring more people, more employees, to help us meet our commitments.

We are going to continue to be there to welcome more immigrants to Canada.

The House resumed from February 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑22, An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act, be read the third time and passed.

Canada Disability Benefit Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:10 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C‑22.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #250

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

Order Paper Question—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on January 31 by the member for Calgary Nose Hill concerning the government’s response to written Question No. 974.

In her intervention, the member argued that the government’s response did not address the substance of her written question. Therefore, in her view, it should be considered a failure to answer within the 45 days required by the Standing Orders and this failure should be referred to committee.

The right of members to seek information from the government is a fundamental one and it is a central accountability mechanism. Written questions are one of the means members possess to obtain the information that allows them to perform their parliamentary duties.

Written question Q-974 was placed on the Order Paper on November 15, 2022. The government presented an answer on January 30, 2023, within the 45-day limit. The response provided appears in that day's Debates.

The main point of contention raised by the member for Calgary Nose Hill regards the substance and completeness of the government’s response. In her view, the response fails to address many of the matters raised in her question.

However, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 529, states, “There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions.”

Our precedents are clear that it is not for the Chair to rule on the content of the responses to written questions. Indeed, in a ruling on a similar matter on April 25, 2022, at page 4310 of the Debates, the Chair stated: “The Chair is of the view that ruling on the completeness of responses to written questions is tantamount to ruling on their content, and that is not the Chair's role.”

While members should have access to relevant and accurate information to ensure they can fulfill their parliamentary functions, it is not for the Chair to evaluate the content of responses to written questions. Therefore, while the Chair always advocates for greater co-operation between members and ministers in their exchange of information, the matter raised by the member for Calgary Nose Hill does not constitute a point of order.

I thank members for their attention.

Business of the House

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, now that we are back from the holiday break, this is the first chance I have had to rise and ask the government to give us the rundown of what is on the agenda for the rest of this week and for next week.

Unfortunately, the government House leader is not able to answer my question, so I will keep talking about the government's eight years in power. We were hoping for bills to help Canadians, but the sad fact is that Canadians have never suffered as much as they are suffering now. We have seen that on many occasions, including today as we debate a very important motion on bail. Crime rates are going up faster than ever. Why? Over the past eight years, ever since this government took office, violent crime has gone up by 32%. In the coming days, tomorrow or next week, will the government introduce bills to implement stricter bail conditions?

I hope someone on the government side can answer my question now.

I will repeat my question. Can the government House leader, who waited eight minutes to answer my question, tell us why in eight years the government has not been able to find solutions to the length and leniency of bail? Of course, I would also ask that he outline the work that we can look forward to tomorrow and next week.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am here and I am very happy to answer the question.

We will certainly continue to bring crime rates down across the country. I hope we can work together on this issue.

Tomorrow, we will begin second reading of Bill C-34.

This is the national security review of investments modernization act. We will continue with the debate on this bill Monday and Wednesday of next week.

I would also like to inform the House that Tuesday, February 7, and Thursday, February 9, shall be allotted days.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 13 minutes.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Bail Reform

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Barrie—Innisfil.

It is always a privilege to stand in this House to speak on behalf of my constituents of Brantford—Brant. After eight years, the Prime Minister and his government are solely responsible for our failing justice system. This is pressing and urgent; bail reform is needed now. Far too often, we are hearing Canadians use language such as “catch and release”, “a revolving door” and “an unequal justice system” to describe the state of affairs in Canadian bail courts.

In my almost two decades of prosecuting in the trenches of our criminal justice system, I have repeatedly witnessed dangerous criminals being released on bail. I am honoured to add my experience working in the criminal justice system to such an important debate. A major concern during my lawyer years was our inability to keep violent repeat offenders off the streets and in custody where they belong. I was unable to vocally criticize the lenient bail system as a Crown attorney, so I made the decision to become a politician to effect change.

The Liberal government wants Canadians to believe it has crime under control with its justice policies and that it is on the right track. I thank our Conservative leader and all my Conservative colleagues for bringing this debate into the House and for showing Canadians that this Liberal soft-on-crime agenda has broken our bail system and eroded confidence in our judicial institutions.

In 2019, to codify the principles outlined in the Supreme Court of Canada case Antic, the Liberals passed Bill C-75. Although it was intended to modernize the bail system, the effect of this legislation was to allow offenders arrested for violent crimes to be released back on the street fast enough to commit other crimes, sometimes on the same day. In fact, this was an occurrence that I routinely saw as a Crown prosecutor. I would often read Crown briefs noting the accused laughed and bragged to the arresting officers that they would be released in hours.

After receiving numerous calls and emails from my constituents, who shared their concerns about Canada's justice system, I met with the Brantford police chief, Rob Davis, and the president of the Brantford Police Association, Constable Jeremy Morton. It was important to learn directly from them what the root causes are and how we as parliamentarians can address them.

Chief Davis shared with me that it is disheartening to all police officers to see that they are doing their job, they are catching people, they are putting them before the courts, they are asking that they be held in custody but they are being released. He said that criminals are brazen and are laughing at the current justice system. He said oftentimes, they are getting back home before the officers do, and the next thing he knows, they are committing twice as much crime. It is a telltale sign of the level of brazenness among criminals. He also reflected on how the system has dramatically shifted and said that criminals' rights have now superseded the rights of victims.

For years, Canadian law enforcement worked hard to build trust in the police and give victims a level of security if they came forward, and the perpetrator was put into the justice system. Now, everything, according to him, is upside down. The Liberal soft-on-crime approach, he says, is bringing the justice system into disrepute, and the concern that law enforcement now has is that if society loses faith in the justice system, we may find ourselves in a situation where citizens will decide to take things into their own hands.

I never thought as a parliamentarian that I would be quoting Oprah Winfrey, but on her show, every Christmas, she would have giveaways. She would point to the audience and say, “You get a car”, or they got another gift. That is precisely what has happened with the Liberal government and the Prime Minister given their approach to the bail system in Canada. With the Prime Minister, for the last eight years we have said, “He gets bail. She gets bail. Everyone gets bail”, regardless of the fact that they have repeated criminal offences on their record, regardless of the fact that they have an outstanding charge and regardless of how serious the charge is.

It is a statistical fact that the majority of serious violent crimes committed in this country are committed by a handful of repeat offenders. For example, in Vancouver alone, 40 offenders were arrested 6,000 times in one year. That is 150 arrests per person, per year. Brantford Police Chief Davis further spoke on this issue and stated that we have entire neighbourhoods that one or two bad apples will terrorize as repeat violent offenders.

The data published by Statistics Canada clearly shows that between 2008 and 2014, under the Harper government, Canada witnessed an annual decrease in the crime severity index. From 2015 onward, this trend changed dramatically.

Since the Prime Minister took office, the number of crimes has grown year after year. Violent crime has gone up 32% in one year. Gang-related killings have gone up 92% since the Liberals formed government. In 2021, there were over two million police-reported Criminal Code incidents, marking an increase of 25,000 incidents since 2020.

Since the fall of 2022, tragically, five Canadian police officers have been killed while on duty. With hundreds of murders in 2021, one Canadian was murdered every 10 hours throughout the year. The 2020 data shows that Canada's homicide rate is roughly double that of the U.K. and France, and four times higher than that of Italy.

Even though the Prime Minister and his government are claiming that Bill C-75 was meant to clear the backlog of people waiting for bail hearings, experts say it has done much more than that. Essentially, the government has told judges dealing with bail applications that they need to make sure anyone accused of a crime is released at the earliest opportunity and on the least serious conditions. Let that sink in. Primary consideration is for the accused, not for the victim and not for society at large. Some judges and justices of the peace feel that the bill has put shackles on them and has resulted in an increase in releases, even by violent offenders.

Last month, all 13 premiers sent a letter to the Prime Minister calling for amendments to keep more people in custody as they await trial. This call was supported by police chiefs, police associations, mayors and provincial attorneys general from coast to coast to coast. Recently, the Toronto police chief opined on the issue of bail reform and argued that only judges and not JPs should be allowed to hear bail cases when serious gun charges are involved.

A multipronged approach to bail reform is required. According to the Supreme Court, everyone is entitled to a speedy trial. However, it can often take years to get to trial. We need to speed up the system so that when criminals show up in court, the judge knows they will get a speedy trial and may be less inclined to bail them out.

The Liberals said they were open to discussions, but that has been their position since the provincial justice ministers raised that issue last March, almost a year ago. Instead, the government has been busy passing Bill C-5 and Bill C-21.

This January, a judge in my riding of Brantford—Brant said that my hometown community is “plagued by gun violence—murders caused by guns and people walking around with firearms. It never used to be as prevalent as it is today.” She said, “Now it’s an epidemic”, and that the Crown should get tougher on offenders.

To put it into perspective, the Liberals and the NDP have ignored the real way that most criminals get their guns under Bill C-21. They eased bail conditions for serious violent crimes under Bill C-75 and decided to put the safety of victims at risk with Bill C-5. The Conservatives have been calling for a balance to the justice system and bail reform for years, but the Liberal Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada continues to defend the current system.

I have a very quick primer on bail. Bail legislation reflects the fundamental principles outlined in Canada’s charter that attempt to balance the rights of the accused by upholding the presumption of innocence with public safety and confidence in the system. The law allows for people who are deemed risky to be detained for certain indictable offences, or when confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined by releasing a person into the community.

Canada needs bail reform now to pull back from the failed views put forward by the government. We cannot continue to endanger our communities by letting repeat violent offenders walk freely on our streets and simply wait before they harm somebody. How much more blood needs to be spilled on our streets? How many more police officers need to lose their lives before the government finally acts?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make quick reference to a couple of facts that come from Statistics Canada.

In 2021, the violent crime rate did increase by 5%, while the property crime rate decreased by 1%. Following a large decrease in 2020, the property crime rate was the lowest it has been dating back to 1965. If we take a look at the homicide murder rates for the first three years of Stephen Harper's administration, there were 597, 614 and 611. In the first full years of this administration, there were 616, 667 and 662.

One would think, if one listened to the Conservatives, that the whole system is broken. It might need a nice little bumper sticker, but the reality is that there are some concerns, and we are working with the provinces. I will be able to elaborate more on that.

Could the member opposite tell me honestly if he believes that people on probation did not commit crimes when Stephen Harper was prime minister? How ludicrous is the Conservative argument today?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what is ludicrous is the proposition that the member put forward.

We are not talking about Stephen Harper. We are talking about the current Prime Minister and the Liberal government. They have broken everything under the sun in the last eight years and are making our communities less safe.

Under former prime minister Harper, we did not have the cry of premiers of every province and territory. We did not hear from police chiefs. We did not hear from police unions. We did not hear from victims crying out for justice reform. If the member for Kingston and the Islands could be quiet for a second since I have the floor, not that member, then I will continue answering the question.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to get the member to address a couple of other issues.

We keep hearing the Liberals talking about property crime. The reality is that property crime is, by and large, not being reported because people are being victimized but they know that the police are not going to come. It would be hours before they could get there, and the resources are stretched too thin. This allows these people to keep committing crimes and getting away with it, making matters worse.

Does the member have anything to add to that?